After visiting TechEd, I'm more and more convinced, the damn is going to break and we'll see tons of people using Azure, or, Microsoft is going to fold up and go away. There no longer feels like the possibility of a middle ground. They're just too committed to it. As such, I'm going to keep going with my pursuit of Azure knowledge, but I can't see a lot of people doing the same thing.

“there is no such thing as a SQL Server team anymore. There is, in fact, no code base called SQL Server. There’s only one code base, which is the Azure database code base.”

Great way to alienate all the companies that haven't bought into the "cloud" PR. Plus all the smaller companies that are wary of the increased prices and pace of change with the increase of versions. Training is already becoming increasingly difficult.

Also after this last weeks revelations concerning data privacy and the NSA, whom will desire to use hosted Azure? Half the questions I answered at a Saturday meeting were concerning PKI and OSS security. These were from business people that couldn't spell PGP a week ago.

I suspect that the versioning will have to do with CALs and how most folks license the products:

- Windows Server requires CALs to licenses, and as I understand it, a Windows Server 2012 CAL will include Windows Server 2012 and 2012 R2. No need for further investment on the CALs side. In addition, Windows Servers don't manage data the way that SQL Server does - a file on Windows Server 2012 R2 or Windows Server 2013 is essentially the same (there may be some meta-data differences in the underlying OS, but it's still the same file). - Same scenario for System Center.- SQL Server is often licensed per Core (or groups of 2 cores, min 2 groups...). I think the issue Steve brought up (attempting to restore 2008R2 databases to 2008, pathces, etc.) will reduce confusion.

All of these companies who have invested in Windows Server CALs (even my small company of 300-ish employees) would balk at having to repurchase a new set of CALs - that we just purchased 6 months ago... (that's a $10k outlay, and we have to have 1 per employee, since our timekeeping system and employee portal run on Windows...)

jfogel (6/10/2013)Maybe Windows 95 was a good name for a product at the time but other than that I'm no fan of using a year as part of a name. As far as the cloud goes, I have no interest in keeping my data there.

I wonder if it is a mindset... to get you to think your version is OLD.... LOL..... SQL Server 2008 sounds quite old because of the name doesn't it? It is tied to the year and your mind makes you date it eventhough it was released towards the end of 2008 and not Jan 1st....

Grant Fritchey (6/10/2013)After visiting TechEd, I'm more and more convinced, the damn is going to break and we'll see tons of people using Azure, or, Microsoft is going to fold up and go away. There no longer feels like the possibility of a middle ground. They're just too committed to it. As such, I'm going to keep going with my pursuit of Azure knowledge, but I can't see a lot of people doing the same thing.

What do you think is going to happen to businesses that feel they can't commit to the cloud for privacy reasons? Is there a data model for them at Microsoft, or are they going to have to rely on outdated product support for a while and then switch to another vendor entirely?